Quantcast

Comments about ‘10th Circuit sets 'expedited' schedule for appeal of Amendment 3’

Return to article »

Appellate attorney predicts resolution could be reached by spring

Published: Monday, Dec. 30 2013 5:55 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
DavidNL
Holladay, UT

Do we really require a multi-million dollar law suit to feel ok about granting a fundamental right to a small segment of the population? The train has left the station, folks... it's time to "disagree and commit" and turn our attention -- and resources -- to much more important issues like air pollution, education, infrastructure and community building.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

May justice prevail.

May the good Lord smile his mercy on the State of Utah and may His Light ease every heart and soothe every brow. May each of His children, whether they believe in Him or not, find a life of Peace, Integrity and Community and experience the love and joy which is the universal gift of that Light. May Mankind learn to overlook the differences between us and instead see that of God in every soul and every heart, that Light that God put there Himself when He created us, male and female, in His own image. May each soul know that they are loved and that His love is multiplied in every loving relationship. And, may we follow His commandment to love one another, whether we do so out of religious belief, or the simple decency of the human spirit.

I will hold Utah, our Nation, and its Judges in the Light. Peace be unto you.

Tai H.
Herriman, UT

I'm surprised to hear these comments about the 14th Amendment. Sexual orientation is defined as a "rational basis" scrutiny classification under the doctrine of equal protection. Utah's burden is simply to "prove both prongs".

To change sexual orientation to a "strict" tier classification would lawfully permit a self-identified gay man to shower in a girls locker room, and a sister on birth control to marry her sterile brother. To change sexual orientation to a "moderate" or "medium" tier classification would lawfully permit identical twin men to marry each other, and thereupon instruct their children that such conduct is moral.

The only issue that pertains to Judge Shelby's ruling and Utah's subsequent appeal is whether or not Utah has a legitimate claim to argue the issue in its own boundaries. That's it. Morality, equity, fairness, justice, Robin Hood, Brotherhood, and colors of green and gray are not relevant to "legitimate interest". And thus it is a State issue, and not an issue that the Federal Government can broadly, (and perhaps infinitely) define.

ReadMineFirst
Ft. Collins, CO

@ Ute Alumni

Your comment rings true with me. Who came up with the $2 million amount anyway? I am sure that there are many folks in this country that would be more than willing to donate to support your AG. Set up a website, Utah! We are here to show our support with our $$$.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

What Utah has to do is enjoin other states with shared support to challenge the supreme courts methodology that is not legal or consistent with the conditions established rules to make decisions. We should not be trying to defend our rightful state Constitution but to challenge the Supreme Courts ruling.

The Supreme court does not have the right to challenge a State Constitution that was ratified and accepted by the majority of states in 1896. The Supreme court cannot change the constitutions, they must comply with the constitution as they are written.

Reyes is not qualified to represent the Constitution, only the legislators of several states can challenges the supreme courts with it unconstitutional rulings trying to change the constitutions they are sworn to obey.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ BYUCamFam

What you're advocating is to apply the "separate but equal" principle to marriage. It's not going to happen.

As for discriminating against pedophilia and incestuous relationships; we do that because a child cannot give legal consent and they both bring about a significantly increased risk of harm through emotional trauma or genetic issues with offspring. SSM does not present issues like that.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

If they base their arguement that the ability to "pro-create" is a requirement for marriage [like they did last time] then why waste another penny?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Reflectere said: "Show me where in the constitution it claims the government has authority over marriage or that marriage is an inalienable human right? Maintaining the religious definition of a religiously ordained institution is not."

Real easy- When the government gives over 1,500 benefits to people married with a license provided by the government, I'd say the government is heavily involved.

The Government is not a theocracy unfortunately so maintaining a religious definition of a religiously ordained institution would be against the constitution or you need to get together with your fellow religionists and decide what our national religion is or should be and change the constitution to make our country more to your liking, like Iran. I just hope the other christians will consider the Mormon church Christian, since majority rules is something you guys seem to like.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

My2cents; said: "The Supreme court does not have the right to challenge a State Constitution that was ratified and accepted by the majority of states in 1896. The Supreme court cannot change the constitutions, they must comply with the constitution as they are written."

That's too funny, I don't think they read an amendment added 9 years ago that changed the original wording to include animus towards a minority?

Saguaro
Scottsdale, AZ

An interesting profile in the New York Times tells me more about this "activist" judge than I have learned from reading his local paper. Judge Shelby "had been a combat engineer in the Persian Gulf conflict and was, according to state voter records, a registered Republican. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a seven-term Utah Republican, recommended him for a federal judgeship, calling him an experienced lawyer “with an unwavering commitment to the law.” Senator Mike Lee, a Tea Party Republican, said that Mr. Shelby was “pre-eminently qualified” and predicted he would be an outstanding judge."

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

I'm just sad that if this wins, I'll be forced to divorce my wife since we can't procreate. That seems to be the threshold to meet and the hill to die on.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

Initially James Madison was opposed to the Bill of Rights. He was afraid that enumerating certain rights in the Constitution would limit the rights of the People.

The people obtain their natural rights simply by being born. We then empower the government (and in the process lose some rights) to protect our rights. We empower this government via the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them. That is why the Ninth Amendment is so vital. It simply states that there are other rights that are not enumerated in this Constitution, and the act of enumeration does not limit those rights.

Who would contend there is no right to marry in this society. Who does not look upon their child and want them to happy, and have a partner that makes them happy? Who wants their marriage put up to a vote? If your marriage was called up for a vote and it failed, would you be seeking protection from the courts?

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

All pro-marriage, pro-family, etc. organizations are jumping on board with the State of Utah as we speak (write?). They will offer all kinds of legal, financial, research and other resources to the State.

I can't believe we've come to this in our society. Polygamy is next. Then any consenting adults including siblings, cousins or even group marriages between several men, several women altogether. After all the only thing that matters is consenting adults and the fact that they want to have emotional satisfaction along with sexual enjoyment. There really isn't other reason for marriage, is there? How about people and animals?

Actually, there is no such thing as gay marriage. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. We can pass all the laws we want to, pretend or live in denial. It won't change anything. A homosexual relationship will never be a marriage--worlds without end no matter how many laws we pass or how much we pretend.

VST
Bountiful, UT

From a constitutional legal perspective, this is a good step and it needs to happen for future legal clarity. Sorry, all you “legal scholars” who are pontificating, above.

If memory serves me correctly, this case (Amendment 3) will be the first to appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court where it has legal standing – it is the State of Utah that is appealing the lower Court decision. The California (Proposition 8) case did not have legal standing – SCOTUS did not rule on the legal validity of Proposition 8 per the U.S. Constitution.

It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules on this one, which will have an impact on all other States that have like amendments/laws regarding marriage.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

Fertility tests should be required before issuing marriage licenses. If you can't breed, what good are you to society?

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

I have a funny feeling that a two million dollar argument isn't going to be anymore sophisticated than what many people on this comment board are serving up for free. It will have some nifty Latin phrases however, as well as references to a lot of Supreme Court decisions with even more nifty Latin phrases in them - but other than that I don't see what the big money buys you.

I also have a funny feeling that the ruling in this case has already been written. Its called the "U. S. v Windsor" ruling that threw out the "Defense of Marriage Act." Whether you make a two million dollar argument or two-bit one, I think Justice Kennedy is going to say, "By golly, I think this ruling should apply to the states as well as to the federal government."

In other words you are going to lose, but if you want to look good doing it, by all means spend the two million.

bill in af
American Fork, UT

The 14th amendment is consistently brought up to support gay marriage under equal protection. Let me get this right; if a Satan worshiping cult that practices human sacrifice wants to practice their beliefs, then they should also be protected under the same reasoning? Of course they will not receive the same protection because their practice is considered an evil in society. The same should be viewed for same sex marriage, but society is quickly shifting away from recognizing sin as sin and replacing sin as an acceptable behavior. Our Constitution was designed to protect our "natural rights". There is nothing "natural" about same sex marriage.

Willem
Los Angeles, CA

The Court is squarely headed toward an even broader ruling based on Windsor. “A majority of the Supreme Court said eleven times in Windsor that gay people and their relationships have the same dignity as straight couples,” Kaplan said. “According to the dictionary, the word ‘dignity’ means being worthy of honor or respect. Now that the Supreme Court has acknowledged that gay couples are equally worthy of honor and respect, all the arguments that have or can be made against allowing them to marry ultimately seem pretty silly.” And, she added, “One thing that really changes hearts and minds on this issue is seeing the altogether boring reality of married gay couples’ lives.”

get her done
Bountiful, UT

Appeal total wast of time and money. Why hate people this much. We should come out of the bubble and see what is going on in the real world. Civil rights for everyone.

Bob K
porIland, OR

BYUCamFam
LAYTON, UT
"No one is prohibiting gays and lesbians from making vows to each other or living together. If the issue is tax treatment, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, etc. that can easily be remedied through civil unions."
-- NOT true: Federal tax and benefits, including Military benefits, and Social Security, apply only to marriage.

"The core issue is the desire by homosexuals to feel accepted and validated by society, even if this must be accomplished by legal force."
-- No, your crystal ball is "off", here, on reading their minds. Most would take the rights and let you keep your judgement. No American citizen ought need to force equal rights.

"There are very good reasons why we "discriminate" against those unions and it has nothing to do with our "hate" of parents, children, brothers, or sisters."
-- You do not understand that treating other citizens who hurt no one as if they were as damaging as bigamists, incestuous partners, etc is exactly the same as "hate", in effect.

-- I have read in DN comments that some mormons feel the rest of us "hate" you. In fact, we may hate some of your actions, like Prop 8, but we accept your rights as Americans.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments